Back
2014 Supreme(Manipur) 51
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR AT IMPHAL
N.Kotiswar Singh, J.
Hanjabam Bobby Sharma - Appellant
Versus
Manipur Public Service Commission through its Secretary, P.O. & P.S. Imphal and Ors. - Resopndent
Writ Petition (C) No. 31 of 2013 and [Alongwith Writ Petition (C) No. 150 of 2013]
Decided On : 24-03-2014
For the Appellant :Mr. N. Ibotombi, Sr. Advocate, Mr. A. Rommel, Advocate in W.P(C) No. 31 of 2013 and Mr. M. Devananda, Advocate in W.P(C) No. 150 of 2013
For the Respondents:Mr. L. Shyamkishore, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Y. Paikhomba, Advocate and Ms. Ch. Sundari, Govt. Advocate
Headnote:
FIXATION OF QUALIFYING MARKS - MANIPUR CIVIL SERVICES COMBINED COMPETITIVE EXAMINATION RULES, 2010 - SECTION II, CHAPTER II, NOTE - GENERAL ENGLISH - MATRICULATION STANDARD - QUALIFYING NATURE - MARKS NOT COUNTED FOR RANKING - REASONABLENESS OF QUALIFYING MARKS - JUDICIAL REVIEW - ARBITRARINESS - RELIEF TO PETITIONER - APPOINTMENT AGAINST SUPERNUMERARY POST.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner, an OBC candidate, was disqualified in the Manipur Civil Services Combined Competitive Examination, 2010 for not obtaining 50% qualifying marks in the General English paper, despite scoring well in other subjects. He challenged the 50% cut-off as unreasonably high and arbitrary.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the fixation of 50% as the qualifying mark in General English was unreasonably high and arbitrary, as it was not in line with the purpose of the examination and the norms followed in other competitive examinations. The Court also held that the petitioner was entitled to relief, despite the appointments already made, and directed the Manipur Public Service Commission to re-fix the qualifying mark and conduct an interview for the petitioner.
Issues: 1. Whether the fixation of 50% as the qualifying mark in General English was unreasonably high and arbitrary? 2. Whether the petitioner was entitled to any relief, despite the appointments already made?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The qualifying mark in General English, being of matriculation standard and qualifying nature, should be understood as the pass mark. 2. Fixation of 50% as the qualifying mark was unreasonable and arbitrary, as it was not in line with the purpose of the examination and the norms followed in other competitive examinations. 3. The petitioner was entitled to relief, despite the appointments already made, as the arbitrariness in the selection process was not due to mala fide act or fault of the candidates.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the petition, directed the Manipur Public Service Commission to re-fix the qualifying mark in General English and conduct an interview for the petitioner. If the petitioner was found qualified, he was to be appointed to a suitable post against a supernumerary post.
N. Kotiswar Singh, J.
Heard Mr. N. Ibotombi, learned senior counsel for the petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 31 of 2013 and Mr. M. Devananda, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 150 of 2013. Also heard Mr. L. Shyamkishore, learned senior counsel for the respondents and Ms. Ch. Sundari Devi, learned Government Advocate for State respondents. As the issues involved in both the petitions are similar, these are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment and order.
W.P. (C) No. 13 of 2013
The present petition has been filed by an unsuccessful candidate belonging to OBC (Meitei) category in the Manipur Civil Services Combined Competitive Examination, 2010 who had been disqualified on being not able to obtain 50% qualifying marks in General English paper in the Main Examination having obtained only 45% though he had scored 67.15 % in the remaining subjects. The grievance of the petitioner is that the cut-off marks of 50% fixed by the Manipur Public Service Commission (MPSC) as the qualifying marks in General English paper is unreasonably high and is arbitrary.
2. The Manipur Public Service Commission (MPSC) issued an advertisement dated 25.11.2010 for recruitment to 138 posts which included 19 posts of Manipur Civil Services Grade-II (MCS), 25 posts of Manipur Police Services Grade-II (MPS), 23 posts of Manipur Finance Services Grade-III (MFS), 43 posts of Sub-Deputy Collectors (SDCs), 25 posts of Manipur Secretariat Service, Category-V (SOs) and 3 posts of Election Officers (EOs). Out of the said 138 posts, the posts reserved for the OBC (Meitei/Meetei) category were as follows:-
3. The petitioner applied for the said advertised posts. The aforesaid competitive examination was governed by "Manipur Civil Services Combined Competitive Examination Rules, 2010" which were notified on 15.11.2010 by the Government of Manipur (hereinafter referred to as the "Rules").
As per the scheme of the examination, only candidates who were successful in the preliminary examination, were to appear in the written test of the Main examination, which consists of General English paper which was of a qualifying nature consisting of 300 marks and 7(seven) other papers. The preliminary examination as per the Rules was held on 11.9.2011 and the result was declared on 24.9.2011. 725 candidates, out of 8479 candidates who appeared, were declared successful including the present petitioner. As per the Rules, the papers of Essay, General Studies and optional subjects of only such candidates will be evaluated who attained the minimum standard marks as may be fixed by the Commission in their discretion for the qualifying paper i.e. General English. In other words, unless one obtains the qualifying mark in the General English paper, the remaining papers are not to be evaluated as provided under "Note" under Section II of the Chapter II of the aforesaid Rules.
4. According to the petitioner, he had done exceedingly well not only in General English paper but also in the remaining papers. The main written examination/test was held from 6.02.2012 to 22.02.2012 and after that, viva-voce was held from 21.8.2012 to 18.9.2012. The petitioner contended that even though he had performed very well in the main written examination, his name was not included in the list of 281 successful candidates of the main written examination which was declared on 31.12.2012 and who were called for interview.
5. Being aggrieved by non-selection for interview, the petitioner applied for information from the Manipur Public Service Commission under the Right to Information Act relating to the marks scored by the petitioner in General English paper and other subjects and also about the qualifying marks for General English paper as well as in respect of other papers of those unreserved category/OBC/SC/ST who were called for interview and Xerox copies of the answer scripts of the petitioner in the main examination. According to the petitioner, after much delay on the part of th
